4th ed pdfs


4th Edition

51 to 99 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Tiger Lily wrote:
Logically, if it were legal to photocopy something you already own, that disclaimer wouldn't need to be there.

Actually, that's not really true. It's perfectly legal for me to make as many copies of anything that I own as I deem fit for my own personal use. It is not legal for me to redistribute those copies, however.

If I have a CD, and I want a seperate MP3 of it for my three computers, I'm perfectly within my legal rights to do that. If I own the PHB, and I make a PDF of it, I'm STILL within my rights to do that.

The moment that I would give it to someone else, however, then I've commited a civil, copyright violation.

The 'legal to photocopy for personal use' blurb on the character sheet is really to allow for limited distribution for your personal use in running the game.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

vance wrote:

Actually, that's not really true. It's perfectly legal for me to make as many copies of anything that I own as I deem fit for my own personal use. It is not legal for me to redistribute those copies, however.

If I have a CD, and I want a seperate MP3 of it for my three computers, I'm perfectly within my legal rights to do that. If I own the PHB, and I make a PDF of it, I'm STILL within my rights to do that.

I'm not a lawyer, but US copyright law does not currently provide for *any* of the actions you have described.


Vic Wertz wrote:
vance wrote:

Actually, that's not really true. It's perfectly legal for me to make as many copies of anything that I own as I deem fit for my own personal use. It is not legal for me to redistribute those copies, however.

If I have a CD, and I want a seperate MP3 of it for my three computers, I'm perfectly within my legal rights to do that. If I own the PHB, and I make a PDF of it, I'm STILL within my rights to do that.

I'm not a lawyer, but US copyright law does not currently provide for *any* of the actions you have described.

It does, in fact, under the doctrine of fair use:

As Bill Gates said, when discussing the sad state of DRM and Zune music files: “People should just buy a cd and rip it. You are legal then.”.

Not evidence, of course, but a highly amusing anecdote.


Vic Wertz wrote:
'm not a lawyer, but US copyright law does not currently provide for *any* of the actions you have described.

Actually, it all does. US Copyright law covers distribution of intellectual property. In my own home, for my own personal use, I can do whatever the heck I want with it, so long as I do not redistribute it.

THAT is what copyright law covers. Period.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

vance wrote:
Actually, it all does. US Copyright law covers distribution of intellectual property.

No, it covers the *right* to *copy* (hence the name "copyright"). And it reserves that right for the copyright holder. Here is the relevant section of copyright law. Note that "reproduction" and "distribution" are both covered.

And no, it's not covered under Fair Use, which is widely misunderstood. Here is the section of copyright law regarding Fair Use.

Bill Gates may offer one opinion (that, by the way, is even disclaimered in the article as not necessarily being an exact quote), but here's what the Recording Industry Association of America has to say on the matter:

The RIAA wrote:

Copying CDs

It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but, again, not for commercial purposes.
Beyond that, there’s no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:


  • The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
  • The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.
  • The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.

Remember, it’s never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make.

"No legal right but won't usually raise concerns" is *not* equal to "is legal."


vance wrote:


Actually, it all does. US Copyright law covers distribution of intellectual property. In my own home, for my own personal use, I can do whatever the heck I want with it, so long as I do not redistribute it.

THAT is what copyright law covers. Period.

That's false. Copyright law encompasses a bundle of rights, including reproduction (whether commercially or not), preparation of derivative works, public performance, distribution, and public display.

Reproduction does not have to be public, and there does not have to be distribution for infringement to occur.


What I can see here out of all this discussion about piracy is that WotC is losing money on this 4th edition. Remember 3.5 core rule books? We would never ever dream they could be gotten as PDF copies on DTRPG or RPGNow but with this edition we can see the impossible. Yeah, they prefer give away his product for whatever they can get instead losing more money on printed books.
On the other hand perhaps WotC realized pirate copies would be distributed right to left so they wanted at least a piece of the cake.


Facism, Pinback? Are you flippin' serious?

Dear God, people who write material actually want to be able to feed thier children. Holy crap, that's just plain evil. Hitler and Franco obviously had a hand in this! I hear that WotC plans to start raiding private homes for illegal PDFs and line up perpetrators for execution without a trial!

Or, maybe, you just admitted to the world you don't give a rat's anus about the people who made the game you pretend to support, and have the whole attitude of 'hey, I'm entitled! It's a game, dammit, and I can't live without it, and that $25 for the PDF is just UNFAIR!' I mean, it's food, shelter, and D&D PDFs, right?

Or food last? Which is it, I'm honestly confused now.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

here's my 2cp:

originally, copyright law was built to protect the IP of an writer or musician for their reasonable lifetime, and most things went into the "public domain" after a period of time. of course, this was before corporations were too involved in the process.

copyrights were never originally intended to be "perpetually renewed", passed on to families, sold as commodities, etc. as they are now.

however, since copyright law now reflects the corporate influence, "perpetual" copyrights are a reality.

so, under the current interpretation fo copyright law, downloading mp3s, pdfs, games, whatever, without the expressed consent of the copyright holder is illegal.

i lost all of my gaming stuff when i went to prison, and i had almost every 1st and 2nd ed d&d book, a ton of other games (old school traveller, WEG, chaosium, games masters limited, whatever, lots of stuff), and i would LOVE to just download a couple torrents and have all that back as pdfs, but i wouldn't feel right about it. i was a lot of things, but i was never a thief.

so, with a limited budget, i comb the used bins, half priced books, ebay, piecing together my old collection. now, some people may say "but those are all out of print, the original publisher isn't going to see a dime of that purchase, whats the difference between buyin gused and downloading?" the difference is, if i buy a used book, the original publisher at least saw the money the first person who bought it spent. big difference in my eyes.

Liberty's Edge

P1NBACK wrote:
Horus wrote:
It never seizes to amaze me how happy people are to admit to being thieves?!?!?!

It never "ceases" to amaze me how people can jack up basic grammar.

Nah he meant it ... he was just showing off the new Escape Artist ranks he bought since leveling up in rogue.

I'll only admit gleefully to being a thief when playing 1st Ed.

Man ... conversations would be so much easier if we all had badges with our alignment on it. Then we could just say "Oh of course! You're Chaotic Neutral. Bye!" OR "A (non-4thEd.) paladin?! OK I'll give the gold back to the orc just put the sword down 'kay?"

sorry in advance, I don't mean to belittle anyone BTW. Just jokes


Just wait until the day RPG and Book publishers get it into their head to borrow a page from software publishers. How long until the first company issues a gaming license with their product that states you only have the right to "use" the book or system, that you don't actually own it? Music and movie publishers are already moving this direction...


Vic Wertz wrote:


No, it covers the *right* to *copy* (hence the name "copyright"). And it reserves that right for the copyright holder. Here is the relevant section of copyright law. Note that "reproduction" and "distribution" are both covered.

Hey Vic, not sure how on topic this is, but the Blizzard v Glider case might be relevant [Link]

"eff.org wrote:


Blizzard said that because the license agreement forbids using Glider with WoW, Glider users are committing copyright infringement when they load copies of WoW into RAM in order to play the game, and Donnelly is illegally contributing to that infringement.

In any event, the courts sided with Blizzard.

It isn't terribly difficult to see someone including a EULA prior to downloading a PDF, explicitly defining the intended usage for that PDF. Sure, a PDF is a file and Glider an application, but I think this could open for more restrictions.

Disclaimer: IANAL.


Steerpike7 wrote:
Reproduction does not have to be public, and there does not have to be distribution for infringement to occur.

Actually, fair use would trump pretty much anything I do so long as I don't redistribute, and I can't think of any case where a legitimate owner has EVER been fined or sued for making their own personal copy for whatever reason.

And I have no reading of the law that would say otherwise. Granted, i suppose some idiot could try to argue it (like the RIAA would want to do), but then lies the fact that copyright is usually a civil court matter, and not a criminal one, and that you would have to establish some concept of damages... which would be laughed at.


F33b wrote:
In any event, the courts sided with Blizzard.

And the main reason is that you're not part of a FIXED product with WoW (like you are with, say, NWN), but a subscription to a service and the case, as I remember it, was a lot more about the violation of the terms of service to the ongoing account rather than the software EULA.

EULAs about just having a piece of software generally aren't considered enforceable for numerous reasons.


houstonderek wrote:


so, with a limited budget, i comb the used bins, half priced books, ebay, piecing together my old collection. now, some people may say "but those are all out of print, the original publisher isn't going to see a dime of that purchase, whats the difference between buyin gused and downloading?" the difference is, if i buy a used book, the original publisher at least saw the money the first person who bought it spent. big difference in my eyes.

Unless you are assuming the scanned pdf you would be downloading was stolen, wouldn't the original publisher have also seen the money from the first person who bought it, and presumably scanned it? And isn't it possible the used books you are purchasing were also originally stolen, meaning the first publisher did not, in fact, see any money for that copy?

Just curious. :)


vance wrote:

...and not a criminal one, and that you would have to establish some concept of damages... which would be laughed at.

Copyright law provides statutory damages. I don't think your take on copyright law is as accurate as you seem to think.... From a practical standpoint your risk is low, but that doesn't mean everything you're talking about is allowable by law. A lot of what you've been saying sounds like it comes from the AHRA, which isn't applicable here.

In any event, I think you misread my post. You said Copyright only covers "distribution". Period. That's false.


Steerpike7 wrote:
In any event, I think you misread my post. You said Copyright only covers "distribution". Period. That's false.

The RIAA is probably the world's worst source to quote on the merits of copyright law. The main reason that copyright law covers 'distribution only' is because 'fair use' covers pretty much any non-distributed use and makes any claims of infringement questionable at best.

Copyright law doesn't SPECIFICALLY allow me to photocopy the entire PHB and use the sheets as wallpaper in my garage. But, as bizzare as it is, it's 'fair use', personal, with zero redistribution potential and zero damages to WotC.

The thing to keep in mind is that Copyright law is not an absolute when it comes to fair use. But, if you're taking an entire copy of a work in a redistribution effort specifically to deny proper compensation to the copyright holder, as per what this thread has discussed... that's called 'piracy' and in no way, shape, or form, could be considered 'fair use'.


vance wrote:

The main reason that copyright law covers 'distribution only' is because 'fair use' covers pretty much any non-distributed use and makes any claims of infringement questionable at best.

This again is completely false. I've been involved in successful infringement actions against people who aren't distributing anything. And I don't use the RIAA as a copyright source (and I don't know anyone who would).


Steerpike7 wrote:
This again is completely false. I've been involved in successful infringement actions against people who aren't distributing anything. And I don't use the RIAA as a copyright source (and I don't know anyone who would).

I would love to see something cited here because I've NEVER heard of a copyright infringement case that didn't hinge on SOME form of redistribution. I can't even imagine how such a case could even come to the attention of the court.

And, to cite Sebastian's MP3 stance, those usually have LOST on actual court challenges (where the defendant chose to fight rather than settle). Indeed, that's explicitly why I said I wouldn't cite the RIAA for anything when it comes to copyright law.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

vance wrote:
Steerpike7 wrote:
In any event, I think you misread my post. You said Copyright only covers "distribution". Period. That's false.

The RIAA is probably the world's worst source to quote on the merits of copyright law. The main reason that copyright law covers 'distribution only' is because 'fair use' covers pretty much any non-distributed use and makes any claims of infringement questionable at best.

Copyright law doesn't SPECIFICALLY allow me to photocopy the entire PHB and use the sheets as wallpaper in my garage. But, as bizzare as it is, it's 'fair use', personal, with zero redistribution potential and zero damages to WotC.

The thing to keep in mind is that Copyright law is not an absolute when it comes to fair use. But, if you're taking an entire copy of a work in a redistribution effort specifically to deny proper compensation to the copyright holder, as per what this thread has discussed... that's called 'piracy' and in no way, shape, or form, could be considered 'fair use'.

Fair use is significantly more complicated and nuanced than the above and Steepike is correct as to what copyright law covers. The MP3.com case comes fairly close to declaring that some personal uses are a violation of copyright law.

You should really give up pretending to be a lawyer on the internet - it ain't working.


Sebastian wrote:
You should really give up pretending to be a lawyer on the internet - it ain't working.

It must be sad for you to know that each morning when you wake up, the world is hampered from being a little better place because you're still alive.


vance wrote:


I would love to see something cited here because I've NEVER heard of a copyright infringement case that didn't hinge on SOME form of redistribution. I can't even imagine how such a case could even come to the attention of the court.

Once case I was involved in dealt with a public performance of the work. There was no distribution of the work and no allegation of distribution. But since public performance is one of the rights specifically protected by copyright law, it was sufficient. All you have to do is pull up the Copyright Act to see the bundle of rights that is protected.


Steerpike7 wrote:
Once case I was involved in dealt with a public performance of the work. There was no distribution of the work and no allegation of distribution. But since public performance is one of the rights specifically protected by copyright law, it was sufficient. All you have to do is pull up the Copyright Act to see the bundle of rights that is protected.

A public performance is a form of redistribution, and has been explicitly found as such, in and of itself. It's just not an 'fixed-medium' transferrence such as photocopying a book or copying an MP3.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

vance wrote:
Steerpike7 wrote:
Once case I was involved in dealt with a public performance of the work. There was no distribution of the work and no allegation of distribution. But since public performance is one of the rights specifically protected by copyright law, it was sufficient. All you have to do is pull up the Copyright Act to see the bundle of rights that is protected.

A public performance is a form of redistribution, and has been explicitly found as such, in and of itself. It's just not an 'fixed-medium' transferrence such as photocopying a book or copying an MP3.

Got any real citations for any of these alleged cases with which you are familiar. Just curious, since most of this sounds made up.


vance wrote:


A public performance is a form of redistribution, and has been explicitly found as such, in and of itself.

Vance, you have no idea what you're talking about. A public performance is a specific statutory category of right under the copyright act. It's specifically listed as a granted right, in addition to "distribution." If public performance and distribution were the same, there would be no reason to have two specifically defined rights in the law. Again, go read the Copyright Act and then get back to me.


Steerpike7 wrote:
Vance, you have no idea what you're talking about. A public performance is a specific statutory category of right under the copyright act.

I was affiliated with a case (as a witness) where a public reading of "The Trouble With Tribbles" was found as an unauthorized redistribution of the script and therefore a copyright violation. This was back in around 1988 or so, and the case was in Marion County, Indiana.

Now, the Copyright Acts HAVE been updated sense, largely to cover a lot of 'specific-case' situations, such as cable distribution, internet, and so on. And, while you're right that there exists NOW the specific language to cover these situations, it wasn't always there, and the findings were that they were, in fact, a form of redistribution.

Chapter 5 of the current Copyright Act, which handles specific infringements, do not specifically refer to 'public displays' in the language, nor does any other relavent act according to http://www.copyright.gov . Oddly enough, the only thing coming CLOSE would be the bits on 'phonorecords' in Chapter One.

But looking over the Act, ALL IP infringements clearly require a transferrence of the IP from one person (or persons) to another in some capacity. Are you actually arguing otherwise?


vance wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
You should really give up pretending to be a lawyer on the internet - it ain't working.

It must be sad for you to know that each morning when you wake up, the world is hampered from being a little better place because you're still alive.

Congratulations; with that comment your credibility went to zero. If it weren't there already...'cause, you know, if you plan on arguing law with a LAWYER (lawyers?) then you'd better do your homework.

Your post has no relevance and is just a thinly-veiled way to call Sebastian a terrible person. I am not Sebastian's biggest fan, but at least he has a point. You, on the other hand, are really just starting to look rather silly.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

vance wrote:


I was affiliated with a case (as a witness) where a public reading of "The Trouble With Tribbles" was found as an unauthorized redistribution of the script and therefore a copyright violation. This was back in around 1988 or so, and the case was in Marion County, Indiana.

Now, the Copyright Acts HAVE been updated sense, largely to cover a lot of 'specific-case' situations, such as cable distribution, internet, and so on. And, while you're right that there exists NOW the specific language to cover these situations, it wasn't always there, and the findings were that they were, in fact, a form of redistribution.

Chapter 5 of the current Copyright Act, which handles specific infringements, do not specifically refer to 'public displays' in the language, nor does any other relavent act according to http://www.copyright.gov . Oddly enough, the only thing coming CLOSE would be the bits on 'phonorecords' in Chapter One.

But looking over the Act, ALL IP infringements clearly require a transferrence of the IP from one person (or persons) to another in some capacity. Are you actually arguing otherwise?

Try Section 110, it covers performances in great detail and provides the criteria of when they are or are not infringing.


bugleyman wrote:
Congratulations; with that comment your credibility went to zero. If it weren't there already...'cause, you know, if you plan on arguing law with a LAWYER (lawyers?) then you'd better do your homework.

Sebastian is a lying little weasel who I wouldn't trust to exhale carbon dioxide. I don't actually even believe he's a lawyer, and about the only real qualification of his that I've seen is that certainly acts the part of the scheister stereotype.

And I'm not thinly veiling anything, I actually think he's a walking waste of flesh that would do the world a favor if he commited suicide tommorow. And if you think I would feel terrible if he actually did, it would ONLY be because he didn't change his ways rather than give up. Either way, the world would be better off.

I hope this clarifies the situation for you for the future.


bugleyman wrote:


Congratulations; with that comment your credibility went to zero. If it weren't there already...'cause, you know, if you plan on arguing law with a LAWYER (lawyers?) then you'd better do your homework.

Your post has no relevance and is just a thinly-veiled way to call Sebastian a terrible person. I am not Sebastian's biggest fan, but at least he has a point. You, on the other hand, are really just starting to look rather silly.

In fact, I took that as a good sign to discontinue the discussion (though I made a post or two before I saw it). Besides, you can't tell something to someone who doesn't wish to hear it.

The Exchange

vance wrote:

It must be sad for you to know that each morning when you wake up, the world is hampered from being a little better place because you're still alive.

wow ... just, wow

The Exchange

vance wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Congratulations; with that comment your credibility went to zero. If it weren't there already...'cause, you know, if you plan on arguing law with a LAWYER (lawyers?) then you'd better do your homework.

Sebastian is a lying little weasel who I wouldn't trust to exhale carbon dioxide. I don't actually even believe he's a lawyer, and about the only real qualification of his that I've seen is that certainly acts the part of the scheister stereotype.

And I'm not thinly veiling anything, I actually think he's a walking waste of flesh that would do the world a favor if he commited suicide tommorow. And if you think I would feel terrible if he actually did, it would ONLY be because he didn't change his ways rather than give up. Either way, the world would be better off.

I hope this clarifies the situation for you for the future.

Holy shit!

How many lines does this one cross?


crosswiredmind wrote:
wow ... just, wow

If you're shocked, then tough. Some of you guys want to act in a certain way, and get your little power kicks, and call names, and do all these terrible things to one another on a regular basis, hundreds and hundreds of times, and then you're SHOCKED when someone genuinely just isn't going to like you?

Welcome to the real world. Given how Sebastian has stalked and hounded me since i signed on, given HIS language, and HIS antics, and his THREATS, why should I feel differently?

If he's not happy with my impression of him, it's his own damn fault.


vance wrote:


Sebastian is a lying little weasel who I wouldn't trust to exhale carbon dioxide. I don't actually even believe he's a lawyer, and about the only real qualification of his that I've seen is that certainly acts the part of the scheister stereotype.

And I'm not thinly veiling anything, I actually think he's a walking waste of flesh that would do the world a favor if he commited suicide tommorow. And if you think I would feel terrible if he actually did, it would ONLY be because he didn't change his ways rather than give up. Either way, the world would be better off.

I hope this clarifies the situation for you for the future.

(1) Your insults undermine your argument;

(2) You misspelled "tomorrow" and "committed." Petty of me, but pedantry is a two-way street.

The Exchange

vance wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
wow ... just, wow

If you're shocked, then tough. Some of you guys want to act in a certain way, and get your little power kicks, and call names, and do all these terrible things to one another on a regular basis, hundreds and hundreds of times, and then you're SHOCKED when someone genuinely just isn't going to like you?

Welcome to the real world. Given how Sebastian has stalked and hounded me since i signed on, given HIS language, and HIS antics, and his THREATS, why should I feel differently?

If he's not happy with my impression of him, it's his own damn fault.

Dude, I get it but this level of hostility is surely uncalled for.

Sovereign Court

The Internet! Serious business since 1995!


vance wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
wow ... just, wow

If you're shocked, then tough. Some of you guys want to act in a certain way, and get your little power kicks, and call names, and do all these terrible things to one another on a regular basis, hundreds and hundreds of times, and then you're SHOCKED when someone genuinely just isn't going to like you?

Welcome to the real world. Given how Sebastian has stalked and hounded me since i signed on, given HIS language, and HIS antics, and his THREATS, why should I feel differently?

If he's not happy with my impression of him, it's his own damn fault.

I don't love the guy either, but you're way over the line.


bugleyman wrote:
(1) Your insults undermine your argument;

Possibly, but I really am just sick of his existance. And, unfortunately, I don't see a way to ignore his posts here, else I would.

more... wrote:
(2) You misspelled "tomorrow" and "committed." Petty of me, but pedantry is a two-way street.

I didn't misspell anyway, I just chose to write in 'typo'. :)

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

vance wrote:

Sebastian is a lying little weasel who I wouldn't trust to exhale carbon dioxide. I don't actually even believe he's a lawyer, and about the only real qualification of his that I've seen is that certainly acts the part of the scheister stereotype.

Neh. Even if I'm not a lawyer, at least I provide accurate and correct statements about the law and its interpretation. Sure, I don't have the authority or knowledge of someone who was once a witness in a copyright case, but I get by.

Dark Archive

Why do I get the feeling this is turning into another of those Razz situations?

Oh and although Sebastion dosent need anyone to back him up I am certain (well as certain as anyone can be on the internet at least.) that Sebastion is a lawyer

Liberty's Edge

How do you report a post here again? Most forums have a button to do it, but I don't see it . . .

The Exchange

Kevin Mack wrote:
Why do I get the feeling this is turning into another of those Razz situations?

Razz was tame compared to this.

Liberty's Edge

crosswiredmind wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
Why do I get the feeling this is turning into another of those Razz situations?
Razz was tame compared to this.

This is definitely the all-time low I've seen on these forums. And I've been here for about three years.


Insert Neat Username Here wrote:
How do you report a post here again? Most forums have a button to do it, but I don't see it . . .

I think it's like old 1E days where you just say the name of the demon-lord (uh, probably best to replace that with post-monster) you want to summon three times. ;)

Dark Archive

David Marks wrote:
Insert Neat Username Here wrote:
How do you report a post here again? Most forums have a button to do it, but I don't see it . . .
I think it's like old 1E days where you just say the name of the demon-lord (uh, probably best to replace that with post-monster) you want to summon three times. ;)

I thought that was how you summoned the candyman only you do it in front of a mirror with the light off?

Paizo Employee Senior Software Developer

vance, that was way way way out of line. Take a couple days off from our forums, and please don't ever do that again.


Kevin Mack wrote:
David Marks wrote:
Insert Neat Username Here wrote:
How do you report a post here again? Most forums have a button to do it, but I don't see it . . .
I think it's like old 1E days where you just say the name of the demon-lord (uh, probably best to replace that with post-monster) you want to summon three times. ;)
I thought that was how you summoned the candyman only you do it in front of a mirror with the light off?

Hmm, perhaps I am just thinking of Biggie Smalls ...

The Exchange

Insert Neat Username Here wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
Why do I get the feeling this is turning into another of those Razz situations?
Razz was tame compared to this.
This is definitely the all-time low I've seen on these forums. And I've been here for about three years.

Yeah, me too. Telling someone to 'commit suicide' is harsh. I keep seeing posts like this lately. If you offer up advice that someone doesn't like they feel like they are entitled to rip you apart, question your right to live and call you any vile name they please. I would love to see Vance, or some of the others guilty of this, talk to someone like that in person. Unless they are top-ranked MMA fighters or something they would risk being physically attacked over such statements.

The risk-free aspect of the internet sure does make people act tough. This stuff is worse than alcohol in that way.
I am glad the community has grown but unfortunately we got a few bad posters added in also...

Dark Archive

Fake Healer wrote:


Yeah, me too. Telling someone to 'commit suicide' is harsh. I keep seeing posts like this lately. If you offer up advice that someone doesn't like they feel like they are entitled to rip you apart, question your right to live and call you any vile name they please. I would love to see Vance, or some of the others guilty of this, talk to someone like that in person. Unless they are top-ranked MMA fighters or something they would risk being physically attacked over such statements.
The risk-free aspect of the internet sure does make people act tough. This stuff is worse than alcohol in that way.
I am glad the community has grown but unfortunately we got a few bad posters added in also...

Personaly ive always went by the belief of not saying something to someone over the internet unless im certain I would say it to them face to face. Unfortunatly not everyone holds to the same princaples


Fake Healer wrote:
or some of the others guilty of this

Yes indeed. Too bad we're not seeing that on anywhere near a consistent basis.

51 to 99 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 4th ed pdfs All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition